Every Post on this subject eventually gets shut down ....

[jceg316]

How about educating me with that bit of statistical data I linked to, I take it you must have some different understanding of it?
Also I meet more 'foreigners' each day than I do native British and I get on fine with most of them.

Yeah sure, in my career as a data analyst I've had to teach interns and line manage juniors; I really enjoy teaching people about data, statistics, and interpreting them. Heck, I've had to use data to stop my line managers from making poor decisions.

I'm reading these statistics assuming they're from a valid study with a good sample population.

There's quite an important statistic in that survey: "It shows that the Muslim population is relatively young - 33% were aged 15 or under in 2011, compared to 19% of the population as a whole." This means there is a smaller working population compared to the rest of the UK, and the employed population of both takes into account children and those retired.

Let's look at the numbers though. Comparing 20% of 2.7 million people to 35% of 62.94 million (that's the UK population - Muslim pop), those numbers are so wildly different they can't be equally compared statistically speaking. And really it doesn't make sense when you think about it, comparing some very top level employment stats of one minority group in Britain against Britain's entire population. I know you're probably thinking "but it was written in a BBC article" - journalists aren't great with stats and I see a lot of questionable sentences like this often, even on reputable sites like the BBC. (To be fair, journalism isn't my strong point!)

However, all this article points out is "only 20% of Muslims are employed" and that's all we can get from the statistics you linked to. This raises a lot of questions but on its own provides nothing that answers "why". Until we scroll a bit further down and this statistic jumps out: "46% of the Muslim population lives in the 10% most deprived local authority districts in England". I don't think it takes a genius to work out that if you live in a deprived area you're less likely to be employed, and there are many reasons for this.

This also compounded by institutionalised racism (or Islamophobia in this case). It doesn't take a great deal of Googling to find this (the video is on the extreme end, but the stats next to it provide some interesting reading), here's more information on what that video is based on, especially about a third to halfway down the page. Even the Sun, a bastion of right wing Britain, says Muslims are held back by racism at work.

There's another important statistic: the statistics which show a low number of women in employment, which is probably due to cultural reasons. It's a more traditional religion, religion has rarely been good for women's rights, but could also explain why employment is lower if there's pressure on half the working population to not work.

I hope you now feel educated on the statistics you presented. Always happy to help out, whether with homebrew or critical thinking around statistics.

 

[Dutto]

The country is what the people make it, mass import enough people from said hole and that area turns into the same type of hole.

Everyone in this country, be they from immigrant stock or native to the country, should be thankful for immigrants if they have ever:

• Been treated by an immigrant doctor, surgeon or consultant.
• Been nursed by an immigrant nurse.
• Eaten a Curry, Chow Mein, Prawn Cracker, Fajita, Pizza, Kebab or any other "foreign" food.
• Shopped in a shop opened at night by an immigrant owner.
• Bought, cooked or eaten a vegetable picked by immigrant workers.
• Used a train, bus or taxi that has been cleaned and/or driven by an immigrant worker.
• etc a million times over.

Immigrants, both new and old, have contributed massively to every aspect of our society and the UK has been the destination of displaced persons for many, many years. Personally, I call the current anti-immigrant sentiments the "Titanic Lifeboat Syndrome".

When the RMS Titanic sank they launched quite a few of the lifeboats before they were filled to capacity. The sea was relatively calm and yet the people in the lifeboats refused to return to fill their own lifeboats and as a result, 40% of the capacity was never used. It was the biggest case of "I'm alright Jack!" that the world had ever seen; until now!

Now we have a similar situation here in the UK. People are dying due to wars, famine and disease and we are telling them that if we let them into our country we will be jeopardising our own comfy existence, but does anyone truly think that a person leaving:

• A war zone misses the experience so much that they wish to introduce a similar situation here?
• A life of poverty misses it so much that they want us to live in the same manner?

Of course they don't! Almost all of them wish to either return home when things get better or retain some of their own culture and integrate into UK society; and who can blame them.

 

[Dutto]

Apparently Benjamin Disraeli (former PM in the UK) said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

My favourite is the "Massive change in ..." which shows a chart that proves the point that the writer is trying to make; and the chart shows a line that goes steeply in the direction that the author wishes you to worry about.

However, if you look closely at many of these charts you will find that the author has disregarded the bulk of the information to demonstrate just how the situation has changed.

Let's assume that the GBP has fallen overnight by 5% against the Euro. Using today's Exchange Rate of £1 = €1.12 a 5% fall in the value of the GBP would mean £1 = €1.06. A six cent change on 112 cents.

On a chart that started at 0 the change on the vertical axis would be from 112 units down to 106 units; and hardly noticeable.

However, start the vertical axis at 100 and the change would look much more dramatic as it would appear to be from 12 down to 6. In other words, a 5% change is made to look like a 50% change; which is much more frightening and therefore "better" journalism.

 

[Bigcol49]

Only 20% of Muslims are in full time employment, compared to 35% of the general population, this is even worse than it looks considering that they have a relatively small number that are over retirement age.

Hi!
Your own data shows that 33% of Muslims 15 years old or younger - 33% of 2.7 million is 891,000, leaving 1,809,000 over 15.
20% 0f 2.7 million is 540,000.
So, of the Muslim population older than 15 29.9% are in full-time employment - that's pretty close to 35% in my books, close enough for it not to be an issue.

A general point- if a large number of the UK population was removed (by deportation, or other means) then the economy would suffer simply because there are less consumers in the country. Give a rich (or moderately well-off man) £1000 and he'd put it in the bank. Give a poor man £1000 and he'd spend it, and by spending it boost the economy. It doesn't matter what he spends it on - he spends it. The outraged voices that complain about people on benefits spending their money on booze and fags are doing so on moral grounds, not economic ones.
The idea that, instead of bailing out the banks, the government should have shared out that bail-out money among the people on the proviso that they spend it makes sound economic sense.

I am speaking as an immigrant - my surname indicates that I am from Anglo Saxon stock.

 

[Bigcol49]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Hi!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1514780127/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

 

[Thumper]

No prizes for guessing which migrants are a burden on the NHS, DHSS etc.

Maybe I'm being thick, but you're going to have to elaborate.

Edit: I see you already did.

 

[Thumper]

The country is what the people make it, mass import enough people from said hole and that area turns into the same type of hole.

So basically you're against helping others seeking a better quality of life due to some nebulous fear that, if you help enough of them, it may one day adversely affect your own quality of life? You can keep that philosophy, thanks.

 

[Clint]

I only partly agree....if you import lots of people from a country they tend to stay in their own group,continue with their ethics,culture,morals etc. They do not turn into Cockneys, geordies; Taff's or Scots. ...or any other UK tribe...I get the feeling that some communities very much dislike the British way of life...and yes it does go both ways...there is often very little effort to integrate...all things I find hard to understand when the UK is such a desirable destination.

 

[Bigcol49]

there is often very little effort to integrate

Hi!
So different to ex-pat Brits abroad. We are a shining example of integration into another culture.
Do we have homes in little enclaves where only Brits live?
Do we socialise only with our own kind?
Do we make little or no effort to learn the language?
If only Johnny Foreigner could be more like us!

 

[MarkBowie]

I always end up wishing I hadn’t read the thread or commented in the first place on ones like this.... I don’t see how anyone can justify denying another human being a safe(r) place to live or the chance to feed their family. The fact that the system is abused etc by a minority shouldn’t make a difference.

 

[Gunge]

Ok I'll give it 2 more pages before the curtain comes down. Not saying owt meself or I'd only give it 1 more page. LOL etc.

 

[jceg316]

I only partly agree....if you import lots of people from a country they tend to stay in their own group,continue with their ethics,culture,morals etc. They do not turn into Cockneys, geordies; Taff's or Scots. ...or any other UK tribe...I get the feeling that some communities very much dislike the British way of life...and yes it does go both ways...there is often very little effort to integrate...all things I find hard to understand when the UK is such a desirable destination.

I really don't see what's wrong with immigrant communities keeping their identity. There's a difference between keeping traditions, keeping language etc within the relevant community and hating British culture. Thee are a lot of immigrants who have their culture but love Britain as well, and would argue the mix of culture has made Britain what it is today. This is definitely true of London anyway.

Another distinction which should be made are those who move here on their own free will and those that seek asylum. The latter are often forced into a culture they don't want to be in, it's just they have no choice as going to their home country they will die. They are usually non white and often don't speak English, and have to navigate a society they don't understand which is set up against them. This can cause a lot resentment to the society which is supposed to be helping them.

 

[-Bezza-]

Maybe I'm being thick, but you're going to have to elaborate.

Edit: I see you already did.

I don't think he did. I can only assume the answer must be one of the countries listed here:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...-many-nationalities-where-are-nhs-staff-from/

 

[Saisonator]

Hi!
Your own data shows that 33% of Muslims 15 years old or younger - 33% of 2.7 million is 891,000, leaving 1,809,000 over 15.
20% 0f 2.7 million is 540,000.
So, of the Muslim population older than 15 29.9% are in full-time employment - that's pretty close to 35% in my books, close enough for it not to be an issue.

A general point- if a large number of the UK population was removed (by deportation, or other means) then the economy would suffer simply because there are less consumers in the country. Give a rich (or moderately well-off man) £1000 and he'd put it in the bank. Give a poor man £1000 and he'd spend it, and by spending it boost the economy. It doesn't matter what he spends it on - he spends it. The outraged voices that complain about people on benefits spending their money on booze and fags are doing so on moral grounds, not economic ones.
The idea that, instead of bailing out the banks, the government should have shared out that bail-out money among the people on the proviso that they spend it makes sound economic sense.

I am speaking as an immigrant - my surname indicates that I am from Anglo Saxon stock.

33% of muslims are 15 years old or under and 4% are 65 or over that equals 37% that are outside full time working age.
That leaves roughly 63% that are within working age, I know that most people don't start work till 18 now but going further into it would take half the day so for this comparison it will have to do.
So out of this 63% of working age muslims only 20% are employed full time.
This means they have a full time employment rate of 31.7%. of those who are of working age.

19% of the general population are 15 years old or under and 16% are 65 or over, so that equals 35% that are outside working age.
That leaves 65% that are within working age.
So out of this 65% of the working age general population 35% are employed full time.
This means they have a full time employment rate of 53.8% of those who are of working age.

These figures are distorted somewhat because the former is included in the latter so it is bringing down the overall percentage of the general population.

If a large number of economically inactive people were removed from the country, then the economy would be smaller but more productive.
There would be less money spent maintaining large families that are on low income or no income, prisons would be less crowded, the security services would be much smaller and cheaper to maintain.
Money saved could be spent on education and the NHS.
The demand for housing would be lower so would become much cheaper, so people would have a lot more disposable income, which would boost the economy.
I agree with the bailing out the banks bit, that money could have been used on a massive house building and infrastructure project.

I am speaking as someone who's ancestors developed a distinct and separate culture over 100's of years on this island, which absorbed small numbers of other Europeans at various points.

 

[Saisonator]

Apparently Benjamin Disraeli (former PM in the UK) said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

My favourite is the "Massive change in ..." which shows a chart that proves the point that the writer is trying to make; and the chart shows a line that goes steeply in the direction that the author wishes you to worry about.

However, if you look closely at many of these charts you will find that the author has disregarded the bulk of the information to demonstrate just how the situation has changed.

Let's assume that the GBP has fallen overnight by 5% against the Euro. Using today's Exchange Rate of £1 = €1.12 a 5% fall in the value of the GBP would mean £1 = €1.06. A six cent change on 112 cents.

On a chart that started at 0 the change on the vertical axis would be from 112 units down to 106 units; and hardly noticeable.

However, start the vertical axis at 100 and the change would look much more dramatic as it would appear to be from 12 down to 6. In other words, a 5% change is made to look like a 50% change; which is much more frightening and therefore "better" journalism.

I will remind you of this when you start reeling out statistics that suit your argument.

 

[Gunge]

This means they have a full time employment rate of 31.7%. of those who are of working age.

And 29.7% of those work at those cash-in-hand car washes.

 

[Saisonator]

I always end up wishing I hadn’t read the thread or commented in the first place on ones like this.... I don’t see how anyone can justify denying another human being a safe(r) place to live or the chance to feed their family. The fact that the system is abused etc by a minority shouldn’t make a difference.

So how many would be enough for you.
How much would you be prepared to sacrifice financially or in over stretched services?
We can all be emotional about it, but we only have a short time as citizens of this country, which our ancestors spilt blood for, then we pass it on to future generations.
I don't want to pass it on as a debt ridden, balkanised non-country without any true identity. I don't want any risk of future generations fighting civil wars.

 

[Gunge]

So how many would be enough for you.
How much would you be prepared to sacrifice financially or in over stretched services?
We can all be emotional about it, but we only have a short time as citizens of this country, which are ancestors spilt blood for, then we pass it on to future generations.
I don't want to pass it on as a debt ridden, balkanised non-country without any true identity. I don't want any risk of future generations fighting civil wars.

Y'know I've been pondering exactly the same. Greenland and Siberia are vast places and largely uninhabited.... what a waste.

 

[Saisonator]

I really don't see what's wrong with immigrant communities keeping their identity. There's a difference between keeping traditions, keeping language etc within the relevant community and hating British culture. Thee are a lot of immigrants who have their culture but love Britain as well, and would argue the mix of culture has made Britain what it is today. This is definitely true of London anyway.

Another distinction which should be made are those who move here on their own free will and those that seek asylum. The latter are often forced into a culture they don't want to be in, it's just they have no choice as going to their home country they will die. They are usually non white and often don't speak English, and have to navigate a society they don't understand which is set up against them. This can cause a lot resentment to the society which is supposed to be helping them.

Sorry when a different culture wants to use it's own legal system, has illiberal views on homosexuality, agrees in the death sentence for apostrophe, carries out FGM, forced marriages and general cultural separatism.
Then I don't believe that is in any beneficial to this country. I know the majority are not like this, but there is a big resurgence of fundamentalist Islam across the world, even in once modern and westernised Turkey.

 

[-Bezza-]

33% of muslims are 15 years old or under and 4% are 65 or over that equals 37% that are outside full time working age.
That leaves roughly 63% that are within working age, I know that most people don't start work till 18 now but going further into it would take half the day so for this comparison it will have to do.
So out of this 63% of working age muslims only 20% are employed full time.
This means they have a full time employment rate of 31.7%. of those who are of working age.

19% of the general population are 15 years old or under and 16% are 65 or over, so that equals 35% that are outside working age.
That leaves 65% that are within working age.
So out of this 65% of the working age general population 35% are employed full time.
This means they have a full time employment rate of 53.8% of those who are of working age.

But the argument you sought to make in your earlier post was not how many [unspecified country] migrants were working in the UK but how many were a burden on the NHS, DSS etc.

Statistics around employment (which presumably equates to taxes paid) and NHS usage by nationality would presumably allow one to draw some conclusions on that. That would cover the 'burden' from a usage perspective. The net burden/benefit would need to factor in how much the NHS relies on non-UK NHS staff to treat UK nationals. Frankly, I'm not going to do that as I can't in all consciousness agree with any argument that we should deny basic healthcare to an individual purely based on ethnicity. I don't think people choose to use the NHS - you tend to use it as a matter of necessity!

So onto the DSS point. The data you need to look for is benefit claimants by nationality and compare that to the working population. Fortunately that data has been collected by the ONS and reviewed by the Guardian (which I'll discount as a valid source as I would any journalistic source). However, the Guardian made a claim about the propensity to claim benefits which has been tested by Fullfact, who should be independent and therefore credible.

The link to the report is below but their conclusion is as follows:

"The notion that foreign-born people are less than half as likely to be claiming benefits as UK nationals is well founded in the available figures from the DWP and the ONS. They indicate that around 15 per cent of UK nationals are currently claiming working age benefits, compared to six per cent of foreign nationals.

However these figures carry a warning from the DWP that estimates of foreign-born working age benefit claimants are limited in that they only present nationality as it was when those people registered for their NI number, not necessarily as it is at the moment.

So while the evidence supports the claim, we shouldn't necessarily take the evidence as a precise reflection of foreign benefit claimants in the UK."​

https://fullfact.org/immigration/are-migrants-less-likely-uk-nationals-claim-benefits/